Why the study?
The cost-effectiveness of community health worker-based cardiovascular disease risk-reduction interventions was not well established.
Does a community health worker-based intervention improve quality-adjusted life years and reduce costs in individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease?
Does a community health worker-based intervention improve quality-adjusted life years and reduce costs in individuals at risk for cardiovascular disease?
A community health worker-based cardiovascular disease risk-reduction intervention is cost-effective, generating cost savings through averted CVD events and improving quality-adjusted life years.
May support cost-effective community health worker CVD programs; extends modeling evidence but leaves open prospective validation.
BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of community health worker (CHW)-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk-reduction interventions is not well established. Colorado Heart Healthy Solutions is a CHW-based intervention designed to reduce modifiable CVD risk factors. This program has previously demonstrated success, but the cost-effectiveness is unknown. CHW-based interventions are potentially attractive complements to healthcare delivery because laypersons implement the intervention at a lower cost relative to medical care and may be attractive in rural settings with limited clinical resources. METHODS: CHWs performed screenings and provided ongoing participant support within predominantly rural communities. A point-of-service software tool was used to generate 10-year Framingham CVD risk scores and assist CHWs to make medical referrals and provide ongoing individualized support for lifestyle changes. A sample of program participants returned for reassessment of risk factors. We calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and program costs using a Markov model. Transition probabilities were calculated using Framingham risk equations or derived from the literature using the observed mean reduction in 10-year CVD risk score over of 37- months follow-up. Program cost-effectiveness was calculated for both at-risk (abnormal baseline CVD risk factors) and overall program populations. RESULTS: The base-case scenario evaluating a 52-year-old male participant revealed an incremental cost savings of $3576 and a gain of 0.16 QALYs associated with the intervention. Cost savings were greater in at-risk populations. The economic dominance of the model was robust in multiple sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: A community-based CVD intervention demonstrated to reduce CVD risk is cost-effective. This suggests that population-based public health programs may have the potential to complement primary care preventative services to improve health and reduce the burden of traditional medical care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: